1. Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
- Author
-
Astrid C. van Nieuwkerk, Raquel B. Santos, Eduard Fernandez-Nofrerias, Didier Tchétché, Fabio S. de Brito, Marco Barbanti, Ran Kornowski, Azeem Latib, Augusto D'Onofrio, Flavio Ribichini, Vicente Mainar, Nicolas Dumonteil, Jan Baan, Alexandre Abizaid, Samantha Sartori, Paola D'Errigo, Giuseppe Tarantini, Mattia Lunardi, Katia Orvin, Matteo Pagnesi, Garikoitz Lasa Larraya, Angie Ghattas, George Dangas, Roxana Mehran, Ronak Delewi, Cardiology, Graduate School, ACS - Pulmonary hypertension & thrombosis, ACS - Atherosclerosis & ischemic syndromes, ACS - Microcirculation, and APH - Aging & Later Life
- Subjects
Aged, 80 and over ,Bioprosthesis ,Male ,Aortic Valve Stenosis ,Prosthesis Design ,Stroke ,Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ,Treatment Outcome ,Aortic Valve ,Heart Valve Prosthesis ,Humans ,Female ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Aged - Abstract
The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81 +/- 7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
- Published
- 2022